Jump to content

Reports


jmweb

Recommended Posts

I hate submitting the reports. If I email something to spamcop they should be able to process it without me hitting submit to the report

The parsing & Reporting system does accept your input and "process" it .... else you'd normally be receiving error messages about why it couldn't. Somewhere you seem to be overlooking the fact that all it does do is parse / analyze your submittal to come up with things to report and places to send those reports to .. but, which reports go out and where they end up going to are your decisions. This is what the "review before sending" is all about .... The parser is only a tool, you must use that tool correctly.

How do I get around this?

The thousands of previous questions like this all seem to lead back to Quick-Reporting, on which the MailHost Configuration of your Reporting Account is a requirement, a track record of previous 'good' reporting also helps.

Details are available in the SpamCop FAQ, the SpamCop Wiki, many previous Topics/Discussions . all found "here" .... Showing as 'registered here back in 04' ... how could you have missed all this? <g>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Details are available in the SpamCop FAQ, the SpamCop Wiki, many previous Topics/Discussions . all found "here" .... Showing as 'registered here back in 04' ... how could you have missed all this? <g>

Sorry didn't have time to look when I had posted that but then again, what are message boards for eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate submitting the reports. If I email something to spamcop they should be able to process it without me hitting submit to the report. How do I get around this?
...If this is what you want, you don't want SpamCop. However, I do not believe there are any services such as SpamCop that parse the headers to find the proper abuse addresses to whom to send reports. Sorry! I think the only way you can do what you want is to write a program that does it. Note that in order to avoid reporting to the wrong abuse address, your program will have to include some very sophisticated heuristics.

...Once you have such a program working successfully, please let us all know because the world has been waiting for it! :) <g>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate submitting the reports. If I email something to spamcop they should be able to process it without me hitting submit to the report. How do I get around this?

The straight answer to your question is...

The deputies can set you up with "quick" reporting, which will allow you to send in your spam and have SpamCop report it without further action on your part.

I'll be happy to set you up with "quick" reporting, but it's a high-risk process for us because of the potential reporting errors if everything isn't set up right, so first you need to run our Mailhost configuration utility so that SpamCop can create a list of the services that handle your email so that our system will know what servers to trust when you report your spam. You'll need to configure a host for *all* (each) of the networks/hosts you receive mail through.

That would include any webmail hosts, such as Yahoo, HotMail, or gMail, and forwarding services like Bigfoot or Sneakemail, and any other services that provide you an email address, such as alumni associations or professional associations.

You can accomplish that by logging into your SpamCop account at http://www.spamcop.net and using the Mailhosts link to tell SpamCop about *all* of your service providers, forwarding services, and webmail hosts. You need to register one email address for each network/host that handles your email.

Once you start configuring hosts, you can't report spam again until you get them all on your list because the Mailhost system completely changes the way SpamCop looks at your spam.

As soon as you're finished, and you've reported some spam to make sure things are working right, let me know and I'll set you up with "quick" reporting.

- Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin -

service[at]admin.spamcop.net

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

The deputies can set you up with "quick" reporting, which will allow you to send in your spam and have SpamCop report it without further action on your part.

I'll be happy to set you up with "quick" reporting, but it's a high-risk process for us because of the potential reporting errors if everything isn't set up right, so first you need to run our Mailhost configuration utility so that SpamCop can create a list of the services that handle your email so that our system will know what servers to trust when you report your spam.

<snip>

...jmweb, if you choose to go the Quick Reporting route, please be aware that going through the Mailhost configuration is not bullet-proof in terms of ensuring forever against reporting errors, specifically, mistakenly reporting your own provider. SpamCop Forum FAQ Entry: What is Quick Reporting? has more information on this, which I would encourage you (and all quick reporting users) to read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ensuring forever against reporting errors

Nothing is forever. That's only common sense.

FAQ Entry: What is Quick Reporting? has more information on this

I'm not sure what information we're supposed to derive (divine?) from that mish-mash of junk.

If you move your domain to a new host, then the SpamCop Mailhosts will need to be updated. That's only common sense. If you get a new email provider, then the SpamCop Mailhosts will need to be updated. That's only common sense.

If there are other caveats the new "quick" user needs to know about, maybe we could specify them in plain English.

- Don -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing is forever. That's only common sense.

I'm not sure what information we're supposed to derive (divine?) from that mish-mash of junk.

If you move your domain to a new host, then the SpamCop Mailhosts will need to be updated. That's only common sense. If you get a new email provider, then the SpamCop Mailhosts will need to be updated. That's only common sense.

If there are other caveats the new "quick" user needs to know about, maybe we could specify them in plain English.

- Don -

Don:

That "mish-mash of junk" is the result of many different instances found here, there, and everywhere about problems seen. Your help cleaning it up would be appreciated.

One problem (from memory, so forgive any errors), was that an ISP added servers (maybe bought another ISP or domain) that were not picked up in the existing mailhost tables (probably due to the different domain name) and were causing problems (reports to go to that persons ISP?). The user needed to re-register their ISP address to get all the servers added properly. The user had made no change, and the ISP had not informed them of their change. Things just stopped working correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As soon as you're finished, and you've reported some spam to make sure things are working right, let me know and I'll set you up with "quick" reporting.

I have emailed you my info.

Moderator edit: 99% of the fully quoted post removed. The Forum FAQ offers guidelines, hints, and instructions on how to use this Form. Snipping unnecessary dialog comes up a cople of times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing is forever. That's only common sense.
...Common sense doesn't enter into the equation when people have other things much more important to do than report spam. This especially applies to those like the OP who want a push-a-button-and-forget solution. I'm not willing to rely on "common sense" when I think a warning is in order.
I'm not sure what information we're supposed to derive (divine?) from that mish-mash of junk.

If you move your domain to a new host, then the SpamCop Mailhosts will need to be updated. <snip>

If there are other caveats the new "quick" user needs to know about, maybe we could specify them in plain English.

<snip>

...That was the information to which I was referring, in part. But more importantly I am concerned about http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...ost&p=33437.

...You're referring to that post as a "mish-mash" may be justified but your characterization of it as "junk" is rather offensive (and unnecessarily so) IMHO.

...We've been through the "why isn't it in plain English?" discussion before -- as far as I can recall, no one who has ever complained has offered alternative wording, so I've given up taking such complaints seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Common sense doesn't enter into the equation

People without common sense are doomed to suffer eternally. Nothing we can do about that.

...We've been through the "why isn't it in plain English?" discussion before

The point being... If you have a warning to issue, then type it up in Plain English and post it.

Pointing people to some huge thread, that covers several situations, and expecting them to guess what you're trying to tell them is not the way to go.

- Don -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That "mish-mash of junk" is the result of many different instances found here, there, and everywhere about problems seen. Your help cleaning it up would be appreciated.

Get rid of the comments, and the "chide and chastize" posts, and then delete everything that isn't a direct solution to a known problem.

One problem (from memory, so forgive any errors), was that an ISP added servers (maybe bought another ISP or domain) that were not picked up in the existing mailhost tables (probably due to the different domain name) and were causing problems (reports to go to that persons ISP?). The user needed to re-register their ISP address to get all the servers added properly. The user had made no change, and the ISP had not informed them of their change. Things just stopped working correctly.

Bad stuff happens to good people. Such is life among savages.

When things like that happen, just point them to me so I can help them.

- Don -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minor detail, no doubt starting more flames, but .... geeeze .... the time I spent tryng to populate what was known as the knowledge base here (the D2-FAQ mod) managed to tick off a lot of people. I have asked for help in/on a number of areas and didn't get much help. The Wiki is available amd those 'straight' answers are trying to be built up. However, this is all being done by volunteers.

Bottom line .. the single-page-access hack thing started as a simple hack to respond to the age-old complaints about the 'official' FAQ. I have installed and tried out a half-dozen others over the years here, the Wiki being the latest.

You want to complain about what's here, fine ..... but the concept of cleaning up your own back-yard applies.

Hell, for example .. just where is the "Official FAQ" on Quick-Reporting anyway?

Give Quick Reporting a shot .... something built up by yet more volunteer folks, again, based on the fact that there is no 'Official FAQ' on the subject at all.

Bottom line, this thing has been around for quite a while. Input from you and Deputies has been asked for all along. This cheap-shot "here's the straight answer" / "what exists here is junk" commentary is absurd, especially when looking at all the time gone by when something else could have been done/offered/etc.

Bash me all you want, but I'm stating that the bashing of all the other folks that have spent the time trying to do what the 'Official' staff doesn't have the time and/or energy to do is something I'm having a hard time trying to tolerate. How about applying some of that "customer relations" stuff that I lack and tone down the rhetoric a bit? Do a bit more research. Hell, even get more involved .... time and knowledge is also everyone else's bane, so please don't stop with that being the issue. "We" are all doing what "we" can, where "we" can ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad stuff happens to good people. Such is life among savages.

When things like that happen, just point them to me so I can help them.

So you don't think that people should be aware of these possibilities before they start Quick Reporting? That if they don't monitor the reports they are sending that they could be causing themselves to lose their email accounts, or worse? I have always subscribed to the "ounce of prevention" way of thinking.

By the time "things like that" get noticed, they have possibly already sent maybe dozens (more if the ISP is not paying attention) improper reports, lost their email account and maybe run up fines (as seen in another self reporting case seen here recently).

I would see it rather quickly because I do both Full and quick reporting. Many people do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Common sense doesn't enter into the equation
People without common sense are doomed to suffer eternally. Nothing we can do about that.
...Sorry you feel that way, given the context of what we're discussing. I don't think it merits further comment.
...We've been through the "why isn't it in plain English?" discussion before
The point being... If you have a warning to issue, then type it up in Plain English and post it.
...I'm not going to retype something that's already had time and effort expended. If someone knowledgeable is not happy with what's there, she/he is welcome to offer alternative wording.
Pointing people to some huge thread, that covers several situations, and expecting them to guess what you're trying to tell them is not the way to go.
...Okay, that criticism has some merit. On the other hand, if someone doesn't "grok" the relevance of something I've written or to which I've pointed, I expect them to inquire further. Admittedly, that's somewhat contradictory to my point about not relying on common sense.... :) <g>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have emailed you my info.
You may want to send it again. I haven't seen it yet, and I know we've been having some network email problems.

- Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin - service[at]admin.spamcop.net

...Oh, by the way -- thanks for taking care of jmweb, Don!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People without common sense are doomed to suffer eternally. Nothing we can do about that.

The point being... If you have a warning to issue, then type it up in Plain English and post it.

Pointing people to some huge thread, that covers several situations, and expecting them to guess what you're trying to tell them is not the way to go.

- Don -

It would appear that Don's preference is to copy and paste the same information repetitively rather than pointing people to where that information already exists.

see Don's previous post: http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...ost&p=51114

As Wazoo already pointed out, the following is probably the best place to point to regarding this issue: http://forum.spamcop.net/scwik/QuickReporting

In the forums we (tinw) prefer to point to a single source than can be updated as information changes than to copy and paste it multiple times, ending up with numerous out of date entries when things change, which they alway do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would appear that Don's preference is to copy and paste the same information repetitively rather than pointing people to where that information already exists.

Absolutely! Even in the very early days when I was working as a volunteer in the newsgroups I used (and still use) the KeyText keyboard macro utility http://www.mjmsoft.com/ to store and paste information from my huge boilerplate file. Tough to beat having the info at my fingertips.

In the forums we (tinw) prefer to point to a single source than can be updated as information changes than to copy and paste it multiple times, ending up with numerous out of date entries when things change, which they alway do.

Nothing wrong with giving people a link to the FAQ that answers their question. There *is* something wrong and rude about just telling them to go read the FAQs.

- Don -

So you don't think that people should be aware of these possibilities before they start Quick Reporting?

That isn't the issue.

The issue is that I'm saying that pushing the users around is not cool. Just answer their question and move on.

- Don -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember seeing Don's response to what could be changed in the Quick Reporting FAQ to make it less 'mishmashy' and 'junky'

The section for email clients makes no sense to me, but I am not an email client which could explain it.

Quick Reporting allows the reporting of only spam sources, very quickly. Please see the WARNING below about the danger of such speed.

Emphasis: ONLY the spam source is reported. Nothing in the body of the spam is even looked at by the parsing engine.

Quick Reporting is a feature of the SpamCop Parsing and Reporting System which is available to free reporters, paid reporting only accounts, and SpamCop email service customers (see Web-Based Quick reporting below). SpamCop will automatically report several spam without any further action on your part and then send you an email about what it did. The SpamCop return email containing the record of what was reported cannot be turned off.

A condition of enabling Quick Reporting is that the user has to run the Mailhost configuration utility first so that SpamCop can create a list of the services that handle his email so that the SpamCop system will know what servers to trust when he reports his spam.

Free Reporting & Paid Reporting only accounts

If you are authorized to do so, forward to your confidential quick.16charANcodeNMBR[at]spam.spamcop.net address (your Confidential Quick Address, where "quick" is substituted for "submit") just as you submit spam by email.

Such forwarding is subject to the same restrictions as forwarding to your Confidential Submit Address - attachments are best, limit 50KBytes per message, and limit 100 attached messages per message.

<Web based email directions which I didn't edit>

For all users

Warning PLEASE make sure that your normal Reporting is working well for an extended period (never offering to report you to your ISP or your ISP to your ISP's ISP) before venturing into Quick Reporting. PLEASE also review your "SpamCop Quick Reporting data" email messages to ensure that your Reports are not going to the wrong places.

Anyone wanting Quick Reporting enabled should send their login username (email address they registered for an account with SpamCop) to service [at] admin.spamcop.net.

This was my 'edit' - perhaps you would want to make some comments on whether this is an improvement or not.

Miss Betsy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

Nothing wrong with giving people a link to the FAQ that answers their question. There *is* something wrong and rude about just telling them to go read the FAQs.

<snip>

...We have a different definition of "rude." As long as readers can ask questions and receive answers when they need clarification of or do not understand what is in the FAQ, I don't see the problem with a general referral to the FAQ (although I prefer to point people to specific sections of the SpamCop FAQ, since it is rather long).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously Don is in his 'high & mighty' mode
...Well, I don't know if that's justified .... Seems unnecessarily provocative (along the lines of Don's characterization of one of the Forum threads to which I referred as "that mish-mash of junk").
and is not responding to any queries about how the FAQ could be improved.

<snip>

...But, clearly, that is. However, he's not alone -- other than the core Forum team and an occasional other contributor, useful replies to requests to help improve the wording have always been ignored.

...In the meantime, I'm sure Don's thinking of us, "these guys just don't get it!" :) <g>

...One day, I fondly hope, we'll all get together for a few libations of our individual choices and have a good laugh about all this, as we remember that we're all on the same side of the spam wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Well, I don't know if that's justified .... Seems unnecessarily provocative (along the lines of Don's characterization of one of the Forum threads to which I referred as "that mish-mash of junk")....<snip>

...In the meantime, I'm sure Don's thinking of us, "these guys just don't get it!" :) <g>

...One day, I fondly hope, we'll all get together for a few libations of our individual choices and have a good laugh about all this, as we remember that we're all on the same side of the spam wars.

It was meant to be provocative. IMHO, calling something 'junk' and then not responding to requests for clarification is rude.

If Don is thinking that 'those guys don't get it', then the reverse is true.

Do you really think that Don considers the forum volunteers compatriots? Not Wazoo and not me, surely. If I were to characterize his attitude towards us, I think I would choose 'loose cannons.'

Miss Betsy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was meant to be provocative. IMHO, calling something 'junk' and then not responding to requests for clarification is rude.
...But was the former proportional to the latter? Maybe so but I'm inclined to think not. In any event, IMHO you can make the second point without phrasing it in an unnecessarily inflammatory (yep, I wrote "provocative" but I really meant "inflammatory" :) <g>) way -- you don't want to stoop to the level of the one you're criticizing, do you? Somewhat reduces the impact of your point. Again, IMHO.
If Don is thinking that 'those guys don't get it', then the reverse is true.
...Not at all (unfortunately)! Thus:
...In the meantime, I'm sure Don's thinking of us, "these guys just don't get it!" :) <g>
Do you really think that Don considers the forum volunteers compatriots? Not Wazoo and not me, surely. If I were to characterize his attitude towards us, I think I would choose 'loose cannons.'

Miss Betsy

...True, that! Where one stands has a lot to do with how you perceive things...one's perspective is everything!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...